(04-07-2015 07:40 )Doddle Wrote: [ -> ]More than any set deficiencies, this was probably the series' greatest flaw - the desire to resurrect one-off characters without good reasons to do so. How many sequels were there which didn't really justify their creation?
Yes. Agreed.
For what it's worth though, my own tinfoil hat theory is that this really became a problem in the classic series in the 1980s because the producers started taking too much note of fandom : imo to cover the fact that they didn't really have any idea what kind of stories they should do or what direction they wanted to go in ; other than to generate publicity and get good ratings : which just resulted in - here's an idea, crowbar an old monster into it, don't really bother about thinking what new things we could do with them or why they are in the story in the first place, ie. are they a "good fit" for the plot ? : there is that enough ?
Fans were all clamouring for the return of "golden age" 60s and 70s monsters to make the stories as good as the reputation in fandom that Pertwee and early Baker stories had; without really realising that there was more to a lot of the stories than just guys in (sometimes very good ) rubber masks and suits.
And the attempt was compounded by a production style that was increasingly antiquated : studio bound and lacking the polish and gloss of made-for-TV-but-shot-like-film series (Battlestar Galactica, Buck Rogers - hello there!) which though poorly written just
looked better than creaky-old-filmed-in-TV-centre Dr Who; and just looking better was half the battle for the casual audience of non-fans in an era when Dr Who itself had lost its weekend family friendly time slot and was floundering twice weekly in an early evening slot against established soap operas on the other side ?
The one time this approach of bringing back monsters worked imo (Earthshock with the Cybermen) it was so successful (again imo) because
a) it was the first time they really did it (not counting bringing back the Master at the end of Tom Baker/start of Davison eras)
b) it was a genuine surprise with no hint that the Cybermen were coming back in any pre-publicity.
c) the script editor had gone and watched old 60s Cybermen episodes and accurately nailed what elements* worked in those stories in the first place and the director understood how to put that together on screen (they so often didn't).
(*Doctor and companions trapped in a closed environment and under seige, images of Cybermen breaking out of "tombs", marching menacingly etc etc)
The law of diminishing returns quickly applied though - the Cybermen especially were overused after that; and they tried it with all sorts of villains and monsters with results that - as you say correctly - didn't justify it : Sea Devils/Silurians, Omega, the Brigadier in Mawdryn Undead etc. OK some of that was 20 year anniversary cash in but still.
The fans wanted it though - and I include myself as a 12 year old looking at his shelf of Target books full of Zygons and Silurians and Cybermen and Daleks and Sontarans and all sorts of things I could never remember actually seeing on TV, and all of which seemed like they would be better than seeing Davison continuously arguing with a bunch of stroppy companions, playing cricket and appearing in what seemed to be a 1920s murder mystery (OK bad example as Black Orchid was a one-off in itself, but you get the idea).
I just didn't write lengthy diatribes to Doctor Who Magazine about it at the time- (
Making up for that now though eh ?
) but plenty did. And they positively frothed at the mouth in a pre-video, DVD and streaming age when the letters then came in from Australia and Canada and places in response saying "do you realise how boring it is to see the same old stories from Terror of the Autons through to Talons of Weng Chiang on an endless loop and not see any new stuff ?"
We had to wait for UK Gold and after the series itself had bitten the dust before we began to realise what they meant.
I silently agreed with people frothing at the time though, sharing the mistaken belief that to make stories like these old classics (that I'd never seen
) would be what would return the series to its heyday of popularity. Especially if the best the new series could come up with when it tried to invent new monsters was something that looked like Bertie Basset the liquorice allsorts advertising mascot.
But bringing back the old favourites didn't work. It just tarnished the reputation of the creatures and villains they brought back.
So if there's any lesson for producers from all that : it's for God's sake don't ever listen to fandom for ideas : even more so in this day of social media and internet, and just follow your own ideas - and for God's sake do have some of your own
Just no comedy alien butlers though OK ?
